By day, Janet Stephens is a hairdresser at a Baltimore salon, trimming bobs and wispy bangs. By night she dwells in a different world. At home in her basement, with a mannequin head, she meticulously re-creates the hairstyles of ancient Rome and Greece.

Ms. Stephens is a hairdo archaeologist.

Her amateur scholarship is sticking a pin in the long-held assumptions among historians about the complicated, gravity-defying styles of ancient times. Basically, she has set out to prove that the ancients probably weren't wearing wigs after all.

Very fascinating. I have read of other hands-on archeologists reproducing lost techniques in weaving, food preservation, flint-knapping, etc. and it gives a much more in-depth sense of what ages gone by were like.

I think her work is quite interesting. I have no idea which hairstyles are believable or not, I would guess that contemporary versions on statues, paintings, pottery, etc. would seem credible. I wonder what future generations will think about our styles?
And her knowledge is a definite plus in this line of inquiry.
Ali

... the woman in the article uses contemporary statues and carvings as her sources.

I am not seeing that in the article - she seems to be using museum pieces - some of which might be from the time of the people depicted:

Quote:

The style, seen on an ancient Roman sculpture known as the Fonseca Bust,

Granted, not all the museum pieces would be from the time of the subject, but the hair styles might still be similar to what was common when the statues or portraits were made - and the article references Roman sculptures more than once.

ETA: I think I might be misreading what Richard and Twankydillo are saying. I was thinking that Richard was meaning "contemporary" in relation to , well, right now, modern. On re-read, I think he might have meant that the statues were contemporary to the people depicted, and thus more authentic than Michaelangelo.